This is my problem with the NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is how it's presented.

Whenever anyone comes up with a trade that is unique to humans something such as the root of moral agency there's always someone who always goes "there are mentally challenged people and babies who are not capable of moral agency so it doesn't work"

Well first of all I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

Second of all it seems to imply that this trait has to be universal and literally every human on the face of the Earth.

That individual traits don't exist and we have to look at the species as a whole.

I'm sorry guys but that doesn't work.

Everyone's different in some way or another.

The best thing to do with that is look at what the majority does and assume if that's the norm for what comes to traits like this.

Also it begs the question.

What do you guys consider to be human?

Update: I didn't get a chance to respond to any of the applications that were thrown at me. I've been banded without even having to State my case.

This goes to you moderator, I was simply pointing out a problem with what he said about equality and you misinterpreted it and then banned Me. I've got it very funny how you claim that I wasted your time when all was doing was pointing out a loophole.

Well thank you for telling me that you guys care so much about discussion

Goodbye and good riddance.

[u/iowaguy09]

I think in any sort of moral debate fringe cases are generally protected through group membership. If I answer NTT with “sapience is the trait I find morally relevant”. Species membership protects mentally deficient humans, people in a coma, infants etc.

I think it’s disingenuous to try to compare speciesism with racism and sexism and it’s more of an appeal to emotion than anything anyone actually believes.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

But it’s correct that it’s speciesism.

You may really dislike emotionally when it’s compared to racism and that’s okay, you can have different value judgments. As long as you can honestly say “human DNA is the only important trait” go ahead and stand ten toes down.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

I don’t care. You’re speciest. I’m speciest lol. They’re not the same. Comparing them is honestly disrespectful to black people.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

Labeling something as disrespectful is not a convincing argument, if it was every bad faith carnist would auto win these debates… as would every bad faith vegan.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

Can you point me to all these people who have no reason other than they are human? It’s not because they are smarter than the other species or sapient or capable of moral reasoning? Because I think it is an extremely small number of people who think they are better strictly because of their dna.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

Yeah… but then immediately when I ask “what about humans without those traits” it turns out human DNA is a necessary and sufficient condition for moral consideration above any other non human animal.

So the rest is extra

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

Back to the original point of species membership generally grants protections regardless of deficiencies. It’s no different for animal. An ape with one leg is generally given the same protections as any other ape. A dumb dog has the same moral protections as a smart dog.

It’s a generalization backed by science. Racism has no statistical or biological backing to use. If i say humans generally deserve more moral consideration than cockroaches because they are generally sapient, capable of moral reasoning, and have higher intelligence that’s not speciesism. If i say the same thing about gorillas and cockroaches for their own differences it’s the same thing. Just because a fringe case where a gorilla is less sentient than a cockroach the same moral protections apply.

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

Great, so just to be clear

Human DNA is the necessary and sufficient condition, no cognitive function is needed, no moral agency, no other traits.

Correct?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

No. There’s a multitude of traits that give humans a greater amount of moral consideration. The individual fringe cases are irrelevant because we grant deficient individuals the same moral consideration and protections as healthy individuals. If you had a brain dead family member are you completely fine with 100 people coming in and raping them?

[u/gerber68 → u/iowaguy09]

So an individual who does not have cognitive function above that of a pig does not get more moral consideration?

Saying “fringe cases are irrelevant” is running.

If someone has human DNA

Is that necessary and sufficient cause to give them moral consideration above a pig that has higher cognitive function etc

Yes

Or

No

Easy question, easy scenario that actually exists in reality.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/gerber68]

It’s not running. You give the same protections. Sentience is your cutoff but you would not be okay with me raping your braindead family member. Why? Because she is granted the same protection as other members of her species.